MY TAKE ON LIFE
__________________

We are conceived and we are born. From then on, we are on our own except for the presence of our parents.

Before we are 'born'  nothing existed, it is (in truth), an assumption.

After we are 'born' we are subjected to that which affects our senses (our personal level of awareness). Nothing else matters. Later on, with 'maturity' (our natural development given the circumstances in which we live) we develop, as a human animal an 'awareness of being aware'. This, 'awareness of being aware' apparently, separates us from other animals but this is pure conjecture since we cannot (at present) understand anything else.

It is this 'awareness of being aware' that, presumably, lends itself to our ability for 'high-tech', as we might say. However, 'high-tech' is no more for humans than 'high-tech' for other fauna or flora, given their 'lesser' or non-existent 'awareness of being aware', as I see it.

We exist only until our 'death'.

'Death' is a function of living. We return to the 'dust/earth' from which we were created, by whatever means, divine or otherwise.

Upon 'death', the universe does not exist for us, this is another assumption. As Richard Bach has said:  What the caterpillar calls the end of the world the master calls a butterfly.

Whatever 'death' may be is a belief from (or of). We are surely not the same after 'death' as when we were when we were conscious ('awareness of being aware') of being 'alive'.

Therefore, there is nothing before our birth and nothing after death; these things are assumed and in our personal view of reality (of our awareness of our existence after birth) are not relevant. We may, for convenience believe in data before our birth but there is no data when we 'die' (unless we believe in a form of 'hereafter' because no-one can communicate after death on the same level of awareness as they were when they were 'alive.  Surely, what we become after our 'death' is not, as Richard Bach (for example) says,  the 'same' as we were when we were 'alive'?

After 'death' we are not conscious in the same way as we were before we 'died'. This cannot be possible on logical grounds (although I begged to be informed otherwise). The fear of death that we have been 'told' is a function of the 'living' not the 'dead', since we can have no knowledge of 'death' until we arrive at its door and beyond.

I cannot believe that there is any purpose in our 'living' or indeed 'dying'. What could that purpose possibly be? The answer would be purely, personally, speculative.

Our 'purpose/s' (in the sense of a purpose for the universe) are purely personal since we are individuals, the process of sexual reproduction in the human animal. The grouping of anything into separate categories is purely a human animal 'thing' and not one with nature, which assures us of individualism, flora or fauna. Life is a continuum, analogue not digital.

Our only individual 'purpose', is to survive. We do this by whatever means are possible to us. If beliefs (whatever they may be) are part of our personal survival, then so be. But since beliefs (whatever they may be) are personal, then, in my view, they should be contained in that person and not pandered to the public (other flora and fauna) as a truism. Therein lies a control of others that is anathema to what we call Nature.

Yes, religion is important to a great number of people. Collecting data is as important to the human animal as collecting nuts for winter survival is for some creatures. Like everything else, data changes and so must everything else, otherwise there is no dynamism in the universe. But we have to remember that when religions first evolved, the human animals at the time were living n a vastly different earth and with cosmic events that we do not see now but are embedded in their art and literature at the time.

If we can't define religion, then we must leave that business alone and move forwards in the continuum and not remain static. The struggle for 'Truth' in the Platonic sense is the dynamism of life. There is no Truth, only truths. One man's 'truth' is another man's falsehood. Where do we go from here?

As I have said, so many times, religion may be about explaining the world in a sense that makes sense but it has been used (like so many other things) to control others. That is the very large axe that I have to grind.

As far as mathematics is concerned, it is very clever (in simplistic mode) but it can NEVER explain the world of nature. Mathematics may describe something but it can never tell us what it is.  What it is, can only belong to the individual's sensual apparatus at a given time, place and circumstance. This, in my view, is the essence of life itself.

I do not believe that life is that complicated. It is created to be so by the human animal.

If I haven't sent it before, I share this with you. It was written (by myself) in the early 1970's:

TIME

Time saw them in a senseless world,
Mindful children made into sages,
Creeping through a history of ages.

Time saw them stop and listen,
To the sounds that filled the air,
It saw them struggle against the earth
    that put them there.

Time saw them grow and nurture,
Fighting all against one and one against all,
Where symbols won.

And Time saw them pass,
Gone into the aeons of its ceaseless self;
Where life grew dusty on some hidden shelf.

There is, however, with all this seriousness, an element (scientific and general) of human life that we sometimes fail to attune ourselves to and that is humour. I am sure that this is a product of other animals as well as humans. However, it would appear that humans have developed this to a greater degree (although I could be questioned upon this).

Humour is, or should be, a major factor in our survival. Without humour, our survival is limited. Humour is multi-functional for our survival. Laughing (requiring over two hundred muscles in the face, as I understand it) breaks the bounds of our depressions and a lot of other ailments over which we have little control. Laughter seems to break the spells of depression that we all feel.

Real humour has no bounds within the human genome. The sad fact is that this is also trying to be limited by those who find no humour within their own lives. These are the so-called 'political correct' who are sad individuals who lack any human motivation or productivity to a common end.

'Entertainment' as purveyed is not humour or anything worthwhile for human survival. We laugh because something is, to us, what we perceive as 'funny'. It is funny because it is what happens in life as far as our perceptions and experiences, allow. Real humour is universal because it relates to real happenings that we relate to as individuals. Real humour relates to those foibles of nature that occur because we are human, not otherwise. As someone says, things lose a lot in translation (!).

The secret of a long and happy life, in my view, at least, is to 'see the funny side' as they say.

Humans have and have not, a great deal of qualities that concern their survival and humour is one of them. What we cannot see, we miss. What we cannot laugh at, we miss.

I am sorry that you have lost the Scottish friend you wrote to. I enjoyed your letter that you sent me that you had written to him. You do have a sense of humour that is applaudable.

Life, as most people make it, is too serious. And yes, responsibilities are serious, that, I believe is the nature of things. But without a sense of humour, these are nothing. Evie and I survive together because we have a great deal of humour between us. We've both been through horrific times (as far as we are concerned) but that is the past. The future is now and what we do to achieve that.


Return to CONTENTS page